Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-relax-00.txt

Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> It seems to me you want to use schema to determine whether or not a DSA,
> not necessarily the master DSA for the target object, implements relaxation
> of some constraint associated with some element of schema.  And you want to
> use subschema for this.
> 
> This I see as quite problematic.
> 
> First, there's the problem of what exactly does it mean for something to be
> published in a subschema.  The assumptions a client (or server) can make
> based upon something being published in a subschema is quite limited.

To stay out of nit-picking my suggestion for a definition would be:
If there's a standard document saying that the Relax Rules Control MAY be used
to add/modify the attribute the attribute type description SHOULD contain
option X-RELAX.

All the issues you wrote apply to other subschema elements anyway and web2ldap
contains a lot of fall back behaviour.

Also note that web2ldap does not automagically enable use of this control.
It's still up to the admin user to enable it manually - kind of a special
mode. But if in this mode I'd like to know which input fields to enable.

I don't know how to get out of the X- prefix issue and RFCs. But I'd consider
it very bad if LDAPv3 does not allow any extension of the schema descriptions
with additional options usable in a newer RFC.

Ciao, Michael.